The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1887-02-24
.,or some Of the views I have thus ex-
spsrfe u Ins asem it unnecessary for any prac-
o,,nton of Judge collars.

uase -, what was said by the Chief justice
EesS .e,;on OF the jurisdiction of the person
% "' 1,,raent. says: 81 agree with Judges
d"' IA Elliott that in this case the court
N', =, jurisdiction of the subiect-matter l do
d. s.wsver, agree with all of the reasoning by
noA ~ reach that conclusion. 1t is
v'NA ;nd;cial question, involving the proper
ln,,;on of the Constitution and the laws al
gee, il existence upon the question of the term
r1'' ,hs election of Lieutenant governor.
81 ,hsrefore, not question that be-
~ 70 the legislative or po-
bnss aepartrnent Of the government
ltca. legislature has authority, either concur
Wv Exclusive to decide the question, it is not
rn'u i, Is in the legislative department. but
es.suse provisions OF the Constitution and stat
peS.noeted in pursuance thereof other than
rfs ., deferred to, clothe that body with the
hve.s;,arv power which is neither legisla-
sIra S", noIitical but judicial BY Article of
stitnton, the judicial power is vested in
w ovt The opinion adds that this is a gen.
p rant of all judicial powers to the courts to
es ssrslnsion OF all other departments. The
ne of power to the two houses to
fnp".sb the returns and declare the re-
~, does not constitute them judi
~, tribunal in such sense as
ea s.. their determination and declaration upon
-. Turns before them are conclusive as to the
VIC .s,v ~ the election, and as to the election of
w. as,sons declared to be elected. Such action
masrprslv ministerial. Judge collars then says
~, ,hsre is another provision in the Constitu
We whch 'is controlling and conclusive against
~ ~ risht OF the relator Smith to maintain this
W. sa,.rs He refers to Section 6 of Article s.
Is,.b nroyides that contested elections of Gov
i no, and Leutenant-governor shall be deter
,"aa he the General Assembly in such man
n y. As NAV be prescribed by law. That section
~ holds. invests the General Assembly with
I :sdeal power to hear and determine
/ ;;aatested elections, as provided, adding
II think it tine invalidity of the
.s.,ionl might be assigned as a cause
y contest although it is not specifically
4 ,smsd in Section 4756, which specifies certain
.nsss for contest But. as said by Niblack, j.,
,ssoncsde that the invaliditv of the election is
4 ,ot specfed as a cause, and that TO make it
.ysiable it must be there specified, would not
l CHANGE the matter" The Legislature is the ex-
\ .rsiye tribunal in such cases, and it cannot be
\ changed by legislative enactment After an ex-
4 lapstiye review Of the statutes on the subject
4 .ha opinion concludes that when there has, in
act. been an election as in this case, and one of
! two persons claim an Office through such an
election, and another, disputing such election,
laims an interest in the same Office or its duties
sud smoluments. they must settle that contest
n tie tribunal established by the Constitution,
and cannot settle it in the courts in proceeding
b. Information filed by one of the parties as re-
htor.
Il Opinion of Judges Mitchell and Howls.
The opinion of the court to the extent that il
holds that an information to try the title to ar
Office can only be tried unless by consent in the
Il county In which the defendant resides, is con
cured in by Judges Mitchell and Howk, bu
y fhey dissent to the view that there was such
want Of Jurisdiction in the court below over the
person Of the defendant as excuses the cour
from giving statement in writing of each cues
ton arising in the record and the decision of tn,
tour: thereon The record discoses that the ap
psant was personally served with summons il
Marion county; that he appeared in person AMI
il By counsel, and pleaded An abatement of the jur
kdcton of the court It, therefore, be
zane at most mixed question O
hv and fact to be determined by the Learned
/ Edge whether or not jurisdiction of the defend
nts person had been acquired, either by TIT
i uocess of court or by the consent of the defend
1 mt II the court decided enormously this was ar
I error In no sense different from any other which
l ttcurs in the progress of cause. freeman OF
4 Judgments, See. 1876 An erroneous decision o
/ snisi prius court on the subject of the complete
nss Of Its jurisdiction over the person of the lit
l igantdoes not render ir improper for an appellat
l court after the nisi prius court has held 1t
/ Jurisdiction complete, to examine other ques
1 tons subsequently decided by such cour
| Md properly presented by the recon
i The questions Of chief concern to the parties
4 and which, by reason of the relation Of the PAL
tos 70 the State are of vital Importance to tn
pubic, relate to the jurisdiction of the cour
ever the subject matter Of the information. Thi
I mbject also involves the validity OF the election
hedin November, 1886 for Lieutenant governor
The question always properly first in order il
very court is whether it has jurisdiction owe
NE Moject-matter of the suit
4 The relator asserts that the Constitution
hS prescribed a method for supplying an
vacancy which may occur in the offic
i u question during the period inter
'sning between quhdrennial elections, an
mat by his election by the Senate the offic
vas supplied before the election Of 1886 occur
I Na Hence, the argument is, there was n
Mcancy which authorized Or required a
teetion BY electors of the State, or which CAV
1or OF support to any of the subsequent step
/ that connection. resulting finally in tn
assclarasion by the Speaker of the House tina
ae respondent had been elected to the Office c
heuensnt-goyernor. The position of th
Napcndent is in effect that if both the law an
No Tact be as claimed by the relator, the cour
Aalst so decide, first, because the controvers
ss'oives contest over the election Of and
Ine'eiore said to be, a contested election fo
a@uienant-governor. All such contests, it
Msuea are by the Constitution expressly con
as'ed to the final determination of the Gener'
assembly; second, because, even thong
..s should not be considered cas-
:. contested election. since the subjee
the information involves tn
~ night to exercise an Office which pertains t
iia,efanate branch of the government; the cor
s ms'iS Is that j. Is matter exclusively of d
.,sal and not of judicial concern. Hence, it
s ssM Inc subject-matter is foreign to the jur
s S.. OF, and is coenizable by, the eourt
NO, .es', Six, Article S, OF the Constitution
s.s ' T that contested elections for Goyernt
arn Leutenantgovernor shall be determine
4 ms ueneral Assembly in such manner as MA
! As 90 examination Of the Constitution and Il
ls a., .lan which has followed makes it man
~ Esr,aaasai All contested elections for Governor
n .,p,,s. governor are committed to the e
49, uaemesh of the General Assembly,
"A yria setU'nsd by the committee for which Or
prssa.:, Is made under the rules and regulatio
4 s rS IN the statute. From the authoriti
: ~ upon principle three general concluSiO